2007 Australian Federal Election

[Will]

I saw that somewhere. Apparently i'm a communist libertarian, well just a bit. I took the test and my position is very close to the Greens. Seeing as I don't want to vote for either major parties - My vote is solved. Lol, I'm not really a greenie - I have 20 minute showers everyday.

If your position is clsoe to the Greens, then you are not a Communist. You would need to be farther to the left to be a communist. If you are close to the Greens, then therefore the better term would be a social democrat or possible even a democratic socialist. But to be a communist you would need a score of greater than -7 on the left-right axis.

[Cruise]

I almost ended up in the the same place as you moment killer.

[Cruise]

where i ended up:

[Shuz]

I'm about one square to the right of you Cruise. Lol, I take it you'll be voting Greens?

[Cruise]

ive been leaning towards labor

but maybe greens for a senate vote

[Shuz]

Okay, up if someone can just clarify for me - Whats the diff. between Senate and H.of.Reps?

[jimmy_2486]

House of reps (Lower House) usually decides new legislation and votes upon it.....then if it goes through the lower house....it goes into the senate (upper house) and gets voted upon there. But Senate really just vote....and house of reps make up new legislation.

[Cruise]

I saw that somewhere. Apparently i'm a communist libertarian, well just a bit. I took the test and my position is very close to the Greens. Seeing as I don't want to vote for either major parties - My vote is solved. Lol, I'm not really a greenie - I have 20 minute showers everyday.

Think of it this way.
We are close to the likes of gandi. that can only be a good thing!!!
And far away from hitler lol

[Diamond]

Okay, up if someone can just clarify for me - Whats the diff. between Senate and H.of.Reps?

The party which holds a majority of seats in the House of Representatives forms Government. Members of the House of Reps are involved in law making, debate of legislation & matters of public importance, committee work etc. There are 150 members in the House of Reps, each are elected for a term of up to 3 years (ie. every Federal election) and represent their electorates. Each electorate contains approximately equal numbers of electors—because of the distribution of Australia's population they vary greatly in area. (Adjustments of electorate boundaries obviously occurs from time to time to account for population changes)

The Senate has 76 Senators. 12 are elected from each of the 6 states, and 2 each for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. State Senators are elected for 6 year terms, territory Senators for 3 year terms.
Historically, the Senate was regarded as a House 'for the States', where the States enjoyed equal representation in the Senate, regardless of their population, with big emphasis on State matters. In modern times however, Senators generally tend to sway in their party's best interest first as bills cannot become law unless they are agreed to by each House on identical terms. The Government rarely holds a majority in the Senate, so intense scrutiny (by the opposition and other minor parties) of many bills is common.

[Bulldozer]

Okay, up if someone can just clarify for me - Whats the diff. between Senate and H.of.Reps?

I can't believe you're serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian ... ral_system

[Will409]

I am suprised no one has posted this yet.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 62,00.html

PM denies vote buying after grants audit
PRIME Minister John Howard's re-election chances have been dealt a blow by a damning report which finds the regional grants program has been used for pork-barrelling in Coalition electorates.

Just over a week out from polling day, and with a new poll showing little reduction in Labor's lead, the Coalition's reputation for economic management has been called into question in a scathing report by Auditor-General Ian McPhee.

The report is critical of the administration of the Regional Partnerships Program (RPP) and says ministers often went against public servants' advice by giving money to Coalition electorates.

And in one 90-minute period on the eve of the 2004 federal election campaign, parliamentary secretary De-Anne Kelly rushed through approvals for 16 projects worth more than $3.3m.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said the report revealed another example of an arrogant and out-of-touch Government which had used taxpayer funds to buy votes in the run-up to the 2004 poll.

And Mr Howard may face further fall-out with one of his senior advisers, Peter Langhorne, an ex-chief of staff to former Nationals leader John Anderson, caught up in the row.

Mr Langhorne was found to have had a role in pushing for funding for an ethanol plan in Gunnedah, in Mr Anderson's electorate of Gwydir, even though the project was assessed as high-risk.

Mr McPhee examined $400m allocated by the Government's controversial RPP between 2003 and 2006 and found it fell short of "an acceptable standard of public administration".

His three-volume, 1200-page report found dozens of instances where ministers had overridden departmental recommendations to give the tick to projects in Coalition electorates.

And in many instances, ministers blocked grants in Labor seats even though the department deemed them worthy.

Mr Rudd demanded the Prime Minister accept responsibility for the pork-barrelling scandal.

"Mr Howard must today accept responsibility for the arrogant abuse of this $328m program," Mr Rudd said.

"Mr Howard on the eve of an election must at least explain to the Australian people how these abuses of a $328m taxpayer program have occurred."

Of the $400m allocated to the program, only $328m was spent.

Mr Rudd said the report showed the Howard Government had arrogantly ignored the advice of independent public servants and abused taxpayers' dollars to get themselves re-elected in 2004.

"I presume they are doing the same again today," he said.

The Coalition today continued to defend the regional grants program and Mr Howard, campaigning in far north Queensland, told reporters he had not seen the report.

But he said more grants had gone to Coalition electorates because they held all the rural seats in Australia.

"The Labor party doesn't hold one seat in Australia that can be called a rural seat and most of the regional seats in Australia are held by the Coalition at present," Mr Howard said.

"That's got to mean that if you are to have a fair application, you are going to end up with more of these grants going to Coalition seats than Labor seats simply because we hold most of them."

Nationals leader Mark Vaile refused to apologise for the program, which he said had delivered jobs to the bush.

"This is a very good program that has delivered some fantastic outcomes to regional Australia and I don't apologise for it – not for one minute," he said in Taree.

The damning revelations were a gift to Labor, which was basking in the positive headlines following its campaign launch in Brisbane yesterday.

And the latest Nielsen Poll, to be published in Fairfax newspapers tomorrow, showed Labor maintaining its election-winning lead with 54 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, down one percentage point. The Coalition was on 46 per cent, up one point.

The Government continued to attack Labor over its economic credentials but its criticisms, along with the announcement of a $250m aged care plan, were drowned out today by the regional grants scandal.

The revelations also overshadowed a gaffe by Mr Howard, who forgot how many days there were to the end of the campaign.

The long-suffering public has lived through months of phoney campaigning and a lengthy six-week official campaign but Mr Howard appeared keen today to extend it by three days.

He mistakenly told journalists there were 12 days to election day, when there are in fact nine.

AND......

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 62,00.html

PM told to explain regional rorting

A FEDERAL Labor Government would retain the controversial regional partnerships program while tightening transparency to prevent political abuse of the scheme.

A scathing report by Commonwealth auditor-general Ian McPhee yesterday found the program, designed to help fund community projects in regional areas, was little more than a pork-barrelling fund for marginal coalition electorates.

It found Howard Government ministers over-rode departmental recommendations not to approve projects and fast-tracked money for certain projects before the last election.

Of the 43 projects that were approved against departmental advice, 38 were in coalition seats.

Branding the episode "massive rorting on a grand scale", Opposition regional development spokesman Simon Crean today called on Prime Minister John Howard to explain how such corruption could occur under his watch.

"The prime minister's got to explain today how he's allowed serious corruption by three of his ministers to occur over several years," Mr Crean told ABC radio.

"We've tried to get this up in the parliament. Now the prime minister has to come out today and give a full explanation of how he's allowed this massive spend, widespread corruption, to occur under his regional partnerships program.

"This auditor's report highlights the fact that there is evidence of serious corruption having occurred.

"What we've got to establish and what the prime minister has got to explain is how ... he's allowed that to continue under his watch."

The Government had ignored a parliamentary committee's recommendation three years ago that would have improved the program's administration and transparency, he said.

Mr Crean said Labor would not scrap the regional partnerships program if elected.

"But we will introduce the transparency that the parliament has already recommended and which the auditor-general has confirmed," Mr Crean said.

"The process has to be established - go through the area consultative committee, get the departmental tick-off, don't just leave it to ministers to dispense the pork."

He said Labor had learnt from the "sports rorts" affair under its watch in the 1990s, in which then sports minister Ros Kelly admitted allocating sports grants based on discussions with her staff around a whiteboard.

"We've learnt from that exercise. We said that there has to be a proper process established," Mr Crean said.

"Here, there's been a process established but ignored."

I think what little chance the Coalition had of getting back into power has been blown out of the water with this one.

[Shuz]

Okay, up if someone can just clarify for me - Whats the diff. between Senate and H.of.Reps?

I can't believe you're serious.

Just turned 18. First-time voter. Don't expect me to know everything.

[Ho Really]

I don't mind Kevin Rudd, but there are questions he needs to answer before becoming PM. Just like John Horward about his retirement and succession, Rudd needs to be queried about leadership challenges within his own party. With so many ex-Union based officials in the Labor Party we need to know whether he'll still lead as PM if things go wrong or whether Julia Gillard or someone from the left will challenge him. We also need to know whether his policies will be implemented or be changed by those. Opinions?

Cheers

[Cruise]

Hmmmm.... who to vote for, Kevin Rudd or Peter Costello?

[Will]

I don't mind Kevin Rudd, but there are questions he needs to answer before becoming PM. Just like John Horward about his retirement and succession, Rudd needs to be queried about leadership challenges within his own party. With so many ex-Union based officials in the Labor Party we need to know whether he'll still lead as PM if things go wrong or whether Julia Gillard or someone from the left will challenge him. We also need to know whether his policies will be implemented or be changed by those. Opinions?

Cheers

I don't understand the fear campaign against the unions being perpetrated by the Liberals. I think such campaigns would only work with people who already vote Liberal anyway. I suspect that the majority of Australians would have a neutral or even positive view of the unions, since it is them who have created the working conditions that people enjoy.